Closed yudai-nkt closed 3 years ago
Thanks for creating mkdocs-click
anyway! This package and mkdocstrings
leave me no choice but to use Click as an argument parser and makes it possible to make a beautiful documentation for both CLI and Python API.
@yudai-nkt You're welcome! I just realized there had been some contributor activity on this repo :-) Will be taking a look soon!
@yudai-nkt So I've taken a quick look at #12, and that's looking great.
What I'm thinking though is that we might want to let users decide which style they'd like, or at least introduce a table
style in a backwards-compatible manner.
I guess what could be feasible would be a new :style:
option on the mkdocs-click
block, that would toggle which style should be used:
::: mkdocs-click
:module: example.cli
:command: main
:style: table
If we do that, I'd expect the implementation to be purely additive, i.e. the current _make_options()
should remain basically untouched, but we'd add a _make_table_options()
function and switch between the two in _recursively_make_command_docs()
.
Makes sense?
I need to dig into your codebase to find out how the :option:
notation works, but your suggestion totally makes sence.
I want to ask two questions before working on this feature:
plain
came to my mind but I appreciate it if you have a better option name.style
, which can be either table
or plain
, to _make_options()
like this sounds more straight-forward to me rather than defining two functions. May I ask the reason you want purely additive implementation?def _make_options(ctx, style="plain"):
if style == "plain":
# format options here
elif style == "table":
# format options here
else:
# raise some ValueError
@yudai-nkt :+1: The style=...
parameter sounds good, as well as plain
.
Options are currently documented in a plain format as if they were copy-pasted from a terminal emulator. I'd be happy if they are rendered in a human-readable HTML table.